Intelligent Reasoning

Promoting, advancing and defending Intelligent Design via data, logic and Intelligent Reasoning and exposing the alleged theory of evolution as the nonsense it is. I also educate evotards about ID and the alleged theory of evolution one tard at a time and sometimes in groups

Monday, February 21, 2011

Fire Investigation for the Willfully Ignorant

-
Oops this won't help the willfully ignorant because, well they are WILLFULLY ignorant. But for all those others who may be interested there is a wealth of information on fire investigations on the interwebs ;)-

For example wikipedia:
Fire investigation, sometimes referred to as origin and cause investigation, is the analysis of fire-related incidents. After firefighters extinguish a fire, an investigation is launched to determine the origin and cause of the fire or explosion. Investigations of such incidents require a systematic approach and knowledge of basic fire science.

The explanatory filter is a systematic approach.

Then we have How to Become a Fire Investigator:
Part detective, scientist, engineer, and law enforcer, the fire investigator represents the collusion of multiple careers rolled into one. It is the fire investigator who must explore, determine, and document the origin and cause of the fire, establish what human actions were responsible for it, then bring authoritative testimony to the courtroom to win a conviction in cases of arson

There is more to be found- just search on "fire investigation" and start reading.

33 Comments:

  • At 5:29 PM, Blogger OM said…

    Can you give a worked example of how the EF can be used to determine if a fire was arson or not?

     
  • At 5:58 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    It is all about cause and effect relationships.

    So basically any time you want to know the cause of some unobserved effect you would want to us some systematic approach.

    How do you think they go about it?

     
  • At 3:51 AM, Blogger OM said…

    I'll take that as a "no, I can't" then.

     
  • At 7:34 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    OM:
    I'll take that as a "no, I can't" then.

    I'll take that as OM is too ignorant to understand anything, then.

    As if I needed more evidence for that...

     
  • At 7:42 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    The EF is a systematic approach to identify the cause of some effect.

    Fire investigators use a systematic approach to find the cause of teh fire they are investigating.

    Seeing you cannot have an arson if chance and necessity can account for it they first have to eliminate chance and necessity.

    Guess what? That is the EF at work.

     
  • At 7:50 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Heck OM you are confused about lightning.

    You think that linking to some forum is the same as linking to peer-reviewed scientific papers on the topic.

    You are a clueless and ignorant troll.

     
  • At 8:37 AM, Blogger OM said…

    Joe
    "Guess what? That is the EF at work."

    In fact it could be anything at work. The EF claims to be a systematic procedure that follows a number of distinct stages. If arson investigations indeed followed such a structure you'd be able to take an arson investigation and map it to the relevant stages in the EF.

    Instead you just cop out and say "That is the EF at work."

    Like anybody believes any claim you care to make.

     
  • At 9:36 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    As I said you cannot teach the willfully ignorant.

    Seeing you cannot have an arson if chance and necessity can account for it they first have to eliminate chance and necessity.

    I take it that was over your head.

    Yes or no- do fire investigators try to determine the cause o the fire?

    Yes or no- do you think they lip a coin to make the determination?

     
  • At 9:57 AM, Blogger OM said…

    Joe
    "Yes or no- do fire investigators try to determine the cause o the fire?"

    Of course they do. But even when no "cause" can be found people have still gone to jail for arson.

    Using your analogy then if no cause to the fire can be found the assumption is that it was not arson, whatever other evidence there is.

    So, Joe, what is the cause of mutations in DNA? What systematic approach have you created that will allow you to determine the cause?

     
  • At 10:33 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    OM:
    But even when no "cause" can be found people have still gone to jail for arson.

    Well SOMETHING started the fie and nature, opeating freely doesn't wipe out all traces of its involvement.

    One of the things I have learned is that a) fires have a cause and b) humans can (try) and do wipe out all traces of their involvement.

    So when no caue can be found then they look for motives and other evidence.

    OM:
    So, Joe, what is the cause of mutations in DNA?

    Their are many causes of mutations in DNA. According to ID some, if not most, are due to a plan, ie directed, programmed to happen.

    OM:
    What systematic approach have you created that will allow you to determine the cause?

    Using the EF- there isn't any evidence that the mutations that do occur are guided by law or just happen by chance.

    So then we back up to the OoL because if livng organisms did not arise via chance and necessity then we can infer chance and necessity are not sole owners of evolutionary processes.

     
  • At 11:01 AM, Blogger OM said…

    Joe
    "According to ID some, if not most, are due to a plan, ie directed, programmed to happen."

    Is it possible to tell which are directed and which are random?

     
  • At 11:13 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Perhaps:

    "A transposon has in it sections of DNA that code for two of the enzymes it needs to carry out its job. he cll itself contributes the othe necessary enzymes. The motion of these getic element to produce the above mutations has been found to be a complex process and we probably haven't yet discovered all the complexity. But because no one knows why they occur, many geneticists have assumed they occur only by chance. I find it hard to believe that a process as precise and well controlled as the transposition of genetic elements happens only by chance. Some scientists tend to call a mechanism random before we learn what it really does. If the source of the variation for evolution were point mutations, we could say the variation is random. But if the source of the variation is the complex process of transposition, then there is no justification for saying that evolution is based on random events." Dr Spetner in "Not By Chance" published in 1997- IOW old news

     
  • At 11:36 AM, Blogger OM said…

    Joe,
    So given that you can only answer "perhaps" and therefore don't actually have any evidence other then "it's hard to believe", why do you go around saying that "most mutations are not random"?

    Earlier you said: "According to ID some, if not most, are due to a plan, ie directed, programmed to happen."

    And now it seems you can't even tell me on what basis ID makes that claim other then "I find it hard to believe that a process as precise and well controlled as the transposition of genetic elements happens only by chance."

    Any actual *evidence* for your claims? If not, I suggest you stop making them.

     
  • At 11:46 AM, Blogger OM said…

    Joe
    "Well SOMETHING started the fie and nature, opeating freely doesn't wipe out all traces of its involvement."

    In the case of arson that goes without saying. But the subtle point, which apparently is beyond your ken, is that sometimes arson happens and it's not possible to determine that it was arson based on the available physical evidence.

    Just like ID.

     
  • At 12:08 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    OM:
    So given that you can only answer "perhaps" and therefore don't actually have any evidence other then "it's hard to believe", why do you go around saying that "most mutations are not random"?

    Yet I presented the actual evidence.

    OM:
    And now it seems you can't even tell me on what basis ID makes that claim other then "I find it hard to believe that a process as precise and well controlled as the transposition of genetic elements happens only by chance."

    He finds it hard to believe due to his knowledge of cause and effect relationships- it's in the book.

    OM:
    Any actual *evidence* for your claims? If not, I suggest you stop making them.

    You should heed your own advice.

     
  • At 12:09 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    OM:
    But the subtle point, which apparently is beyond your ken, is that sometimes arson happens and it's not possible to determine that it was arson based on the available physical evidence.

    So what? That doesn't have anything to do with anything I have said.

    OM:
    Just like ID.

    ID is based on physical evidence. OTOH your position is based on ignorance.

     
  • At 12:45 PM, Blogger OM said…

    Joe,
    Finding something hard to believe is not evidence.

     
  • At 1:01 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    OM:
    Finding something hard to believe is not evidence.

    Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.

    IOW evotards are making claims that are hard to believe because those same evotards cannot produce any evidence to support them.

    Not that you can understand that...

     
  • At 1:11 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Fire invesigation- the science is about finding the cause. That means if they can determine arson without knowing the cause they do so outside of science.

    Which brings us to another point- science isn't the endpoint of inquiry. And answers can be found without the aid of science.

     
  • At 8:28 AM, Blogger OM said…

    Joe
    "That means if they can determine arson without knowing the cause they do so outside of science."

    Would this be an example of "non-material" information then?

    Can you give an example of such a cause being determined "outside of science"?

     
  • At 8:36 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    "That means if they can determine arson without knowing the cause they do so outside of science."

    OM:
    Would this be an example of "non-material" information then?

    Are people "material"- how about a material witness?

    OM:
    Can you give an example of such a cause being determined "outside of science"?

    Are police detectives scientists?

     
  • At 10:38 AM, Blogger OM said…

    Joe
    "Are people "material"- how about a material witness?"

    The clue is in the name Joe.

    "Are police detectives scientists?"

    In a way, yes. They act on the basis of evidence and draw conclusions from that evidence. If there was such a thing as an "ID detective" they would never leave their armchair but claim to have solved the case anyway. They would not be able to tell you the name of the criminal but they would be sure a crime took place and furthermore that a criminal likely did it. Via the mechanism of "crime". As "crime" is a mechanism IOW don't ya know.

     
  • At 10:47 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    "Are police detectives scientists?"

    OM:
    In a way, yes.

    Right and in the same way evryone is a scientist.

    OM:
    If there was such a thing as an "ID detective" they would never leave their armchair but claim to have solved the case anyway.

    Again with your ignorant spewage.

    You are really impressed with and proud of your ignorance.

    I'm not...

     
  • At 4:13 PM, Blogger OM said…

    Joe
    "Right and in the same way evryone is a scientist. "

    Exactly. If you apply the scientific method you are a scientist.

    Are you applying the scientific method when you say it's "obvious" that a mutation always results in a decrease of SI?

     
  • At 4:21 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    OM:
    If you apply the scientific method you are a scientist.

    Is that the definition of a scientist?

    OM:
    Are you applying the scientific method when you say it's "obvious" that a mutation always results in a decrease of SI?

    I didn't say that you freak.

     
  • At 7:38 AM, Blogger OM said…

    Joe,
    "I didn't say that you freak."

    Yes, you did.

     
  • At 7:50 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    OM:
    Are you applying the scientific method when you say it's "obvious" that a mutation always results in a decrease of SI?

    I didn't say that you freak.

    OM:
    Yes, you did.

    You are a liar.

     
  • At 8:45 AM, Blogger OM said…

    Joe,

    I said "So to be clear, all "destructive" mutations result in a loss of SI?"

    And you said:

    "That should be obvious."

    Try to keep up...

     
  • At 8:48 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    So you are a lying freak.

    Ya see I said DESTRUCTIVE mutations result in a loss.

    YOU said:

    Are you applying the scientific method when you say it's "obvious" that a mutation always results in a decrease of SI?

    Not one ord about destructive mutations.

    You lose- again, as usual.

     
  • At 12:20 PM, Blogger OM said…

    Joe
    "Ya see I said DESTRUCTIVE mutations result in a loss."

    What about constructive mutations? Do they result in a gain?

     
  • At 12:21 PM, Blogger OM said…

    Joe
    "Not one ord about destructive mutations."

    Can mutations

    A) Increase
    B) Decrease
    C) Both A and B.
    D) Other

    The amount of "SI" present?

     
  • At 3:53 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    OM:
    What about constructive mutations?

    Produce them or shut up.

     
  • At 3:54 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    OM:
    Can mutations

    A) Increase
    B) Decrease
    C) Both A and B.
    D) Other

    The amount of "SI" present?


    Apparently not or you would have been posting them by now.

     

Post a Comment

<< Home